Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PhillyB

What takes more faith: Theism or Atheism?

86 posts in this topic

The problem with comparing theology to a belief with unicorns is that unicorns are a severly specific subject. It would be akin to comparing the theory of reletivity to the theory of the big bang.

just because you wrap an entire life system around an imaginary object doesn't mean at its core is an imaginary object. in this comparison god:theology::Unicorn:lisa frank

And as for the final comment, I only ask if you'd like me to do your thinking for you? Skeptics work much more efficiantly when they attack a subject head on rather than waiting for the supporters to reveal their arguements.

what?

your claim was that atheism and theism are "remarkably" similar. if you seem to think im dodging that, expand on your cliche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just because you wrap an entire life system around an imaginary object doesn't mean at its core is an imaginary object. in this comparison god:theology::Unicorn:lisa frank

what?

your claim was that atheism and theism are "remarkably" similar. if you seem to think im dodging that, expand on your cliche

A fair amount of science is wrapped around the idea of the big bang, a theory which is only supported by random mathematical chance (not the theory of reletivity as most would like you to believe), a system of theory that if used properly can only explain why everything is a possibility and that it would be foolish to focus in so narrowly on one such possible or probable instance.

Atheism and theism are similar in a multitude of ways. One similarity is that both are very linear patterns, locked into certain directions of thought and finding it very difficult to break free of those patterns. Outside of the amount of abstract or rational thinking, these linear patterns of thought dictate that the behaviors, arguements, philosophies, social interactions, interests and disinterests, etc. are all very similar between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fair amount of science is wrapped around the idea of the big bang, a theory which is only supported by random mathematical chance

...and actual scientific observations of an ever expanding universe going back billions of years. You make it sound like its just something thought up in a classroom. This is one reason the Hubble is such an important piece of technology over the past century.

Not sure why theists have an issue with the big bang, other than it conflicting with their own individual dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to think the big bang points more toward a creator than against it. I dont have a problem with the fact science and christianity can coexist and complement each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and actual scientific observations of an ever expanding universe going back billions of years. You make it sound like its just something thought up in a classroom. This is one reason the Hubble is such an important piece of technology over the past century.

Not sure why theists have an issue with the big bang, other than it conflicting with their own individual dogma.

Nah. Don't have a problem with the double b. Think it's a perfectly rational explanation. I see several holes in the theory in regards to reletivity though. So far, none of them are truly spoken of. Hawking came close to some of them in "A brief history of time" but he's been too obsessed with unified field to expand upon those findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to think the big bang points more toward a creator than against it. I dont have a problem with the fact science and christianity can coexist and complement each other.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to think the big bang points more toward a creator than against it. I dont have a problem with the fact science and christianity can coexist and complement each other.

It can coexist, you just can't take the Bible as inerrant. That doesn't bother most christians in the world, mostly just american christians more so in the south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can coexist, you just can't take the Bible as inerrant. That doesn't bother most christians in the world, mostly just american christians more so in the south.

Staunch Southern Baptists would be even more specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to think the big bang points more toward a creator than against it.

I totally agree. where did this "magical ball of matter" that exploded come from?

something doesn't come from nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree. where did this "magical ball of matter" that exploded come from?

something doesn't come from nothing.

What's most interesting is that this isn't even the most obvious flaw to the theory. It's just the easiest question to ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the dude in the videos black nail polish. That sold it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites